California 2010 Propositions: How I'm Voting

I've read the propositions and formed my opinions. I know why people don't read them: they are boring, confusingly worded, and unimaginative. Still, I have my opinions on them. Here they are:

Prop 19 - The Legalization of Marijuana

NO

I've really tried to be open minded on this, but I think the passage of this measure will have lots of unintended consequences. Shouldn't the anti-smoking coalitions be concerned about second hand smoke, or is that just the demon of ordinary tobacco?

Prop 20 - Citizens' Redistricting Committee

YES

A Citizens' Redistricting Committee already exists. This law just makes the parameters for redistricting more specific and requires that the committee take into account the geographic area, social interests, economic interests, transportation facilities usage, and other factors (including geographic contiguity) when drawing district boundaries. I'm not a big fan of having the constitution of this state amended, but I'll take it in this case.

Prop 21 - Vehicle License Fee for State Parks

NO

I like state parks; I really do. What I don't like is the legislature's attempt to raise my taxes because it can't use money efficiently. It's not a tax, it's a fee? You can call it what you want, but every time government grabs money from me when I don't want it taken, it's a tax. Besides, there's not guarantee that the "fee" will remain at $18.00 (the initial amount). When do fees go down?

Although the proposition states that the money can only be used for the state parks, experience has shown me that this tax money can be moved around easily to unrelated projects while still having a nominal relation to the parks.

Prop 22 - Prevent the State from Taking Dedicated Local Funds

NO

At first glance, this seems like a good idea. But this is a long proposition to read, and that's never good. I was uncertain until I came to the part where the state can give land to the Department of Fish and Game. Fish and Game, really?

My opinion is that this proposition is not just about keeping the state's hands off local revenues, and it attempts to address too many issues. I'm still scratching my head about Fish and Game. So until a clearer bill comes about, I'm against this one.

Prop 23 - Suspend Environmental Law AB32...

YES

...until unemployment reaches 5.5%. AB32 is essentially a statewide cap and trade law to combat the growing danger of global warming. Do I believe in the man made global warming hysteria? Is my question an answer in itself?

AB32, like almost all California regulatory law, raises the cost of doing business here, which is not good for the states economy. Really, I'd like to have AB32 repealed, but I'll settle for this for the time being.

Prop 24 - End Corporate Tax Loopholes

NO

Big Corporations (capitalized because there is an actual evil entity called Big Corporation that seeks to make slaves of us all) make more money than I'll ever see. They also create more jobs than I'll ever create. This state doesn't need an additional tax law to add to the usurious cobweb of current tax law. It needs a simple, coherent tax law that applies fairly to everyone.

I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that:

1. Corporations are good, but persecuted for their goodness and money
2. Corporations are bad, greedy, and have their boots on the heads of the common worker (that's the Obama administration)

Coherent tax policy is what I'm after.

Prop 25 - On Time Budget

NO

There is a group called "No on 25, Yes on 26" that believes that proposition 25 will eliminate the homeowner benefit of proposition 13 and will make it easier to raise taxes, while proposition 26 will prevent just that. I don't believe this is the case. While proposition 25 does not explicitly say, in the text of the proposed law, that proposition 13 is unaffected, the introductory text does say that 25 will not change proposition 13. This proposition allow legislators to pass a budget with a simple majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote. This voting change does not apply to taxes.

What I like about this proposition is that legislators get their pay docked for every day a budget is not passed on the required date, and that they do not get that money back retroactively even when the budget gets passed. Will this make for hastily constructed budgets? Hey, this is California, when has a budget passed by these goons been good for the state?

Update
I had to reverse my previous yes vote when I saw that many of the thug unions were behind this legislation. Sorry, but I can't vote with them.

Prop 26 - Fees are Taxes Too

YES

This proposition address government administrative "fees" for what they are. Taxes. Legislators will be required to go through the 2/3 voting requirement to raise administrative fees just like they do with raising taxes. The fee hikes are not left up to unelected administrative personnel. This proposition will not apply to fees for an actual government service or permit that one actually requests from the government as an individual.

This may reduce the flow of much needed revenue going to the state and local governments when they need it. Anybody sad?

Prop 27 - Redistricting by Congress

NO

This proposition is nearly the same as proposition 20 (The Citizens' Redistricting Committee). Nearly. In fact, I should confess, I was a little confused in reading it. In this proposition, Congress seems to maintain some of it's influence in the process.

But then I got to the part where the California Supreme Court is able to "fashion remedies" in any redistricting dispute if necessary. Because their previous "fashioned remedies" have been so good in the past. This is the only reason I'm voting no.

So there you have it. These are my positions, simply stated. If they help you, that's great. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm a fairly thoughtful voter and I've seen how California's courts and legislatures have operated in the past.

Oh, and I support Carly Fiorina for senator, and Meg Whitman for Governor. Here are just a couple of reasons why:



and...



How stupid do they think we are?